Action and Cognition in Task Oriented Coping: Factor Structure and Internal Consistency of The CISS-21 With An Indian Sample

Action and Cognition in Task Oriented Coping: Factor Structure and
Internal Consistency of the CISS-21 with an Indian Sample
Mayank Golpelwar
Lehrstuhl für Personalwesen und Führungslehre (Department of Human Resource

PrePrints
Management and Leadership), Universität Bayreuth (University of Bayreuth), Bayreuth,

Germany
RW-II 2.13, Universitätsstraße 30, D-95440 Bayreuth, Germany
E-Mail: mayank.golpelwar@uni-bayreuth.de
PeerJ PrePrints | http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.519v2 | CC-BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 2 Oct 2014, publ: 2 Oct 2014
Action and Cognition in Task Oriented Coping: Factor Structure and
Internal Consistency of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations – 21
Item Scale with an Indian Sample
Running Title: CISS-21 with an Indian Sample
Abstract
Objective: Although the Coping Instrument for Stressful Situations – 21 item scale
PrePrints
(CISS-21) offers excellent psychometric stability in samples from various countries, data
about its validity and reliability among Indian samples is not easily accessible. The current
study presents these data from a sample consisting of urban Indians working in the global
service sector.
Method: Two hundred and seventy four professionals working in highly paying
service sector jobs in India completed the CISS-21. The data was analyzed using principal
factor analysis and reliability analysis.
Results: Instead of the three-factor structure consisting of emotion-oriented,
avoidance-oriented, and task-oriented coping strategies, a four-factor structure emerged. This
resulting structure indicates that the current Indian sample perceived the task-oriented coping
strategy as comprising of two distinct sub-factors: One involving cognitive-appraisal based
mechanisms and another where a direct action-based approach is preferred.
Conclusion: among the Indian sample involved in the current study, CISS-21 appears
to be a reliable and valid scale, albeit with a four instead of three factor structure. Naïve
dialecticism and Biculturalism are presented and discussed as possible reasons for this unique
factor structure.
Key words
CISS-21; Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations; India; Service Sector; Validity;
Reliability
CISS-21 with an Indian Sample
Introduction
In their classical work on coping, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) proposed that people
deal with stress using either problem-focused or emotion-focused coping strategies. Since
then, many researchers have refined and expanded upon this typology of coping styles. For
example, Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) described 14 different kinds of coping
mechanisms in their COPE (Coping Orientations to Problems Experienced) instrument, while
McCrae (1984) suggested 28 coping strategies or factors. Folkman and Lazarus (1988) also
expanded their original two dimensions to eight in their ‘Ways of Coping’ questionnaire.
PrePrints
However, in spite of the presence of such models, which differentiate between multiple styles
of coping mechanisms, there is a wide acceptance of coping being constituted of just two to
three elementary strategies (Boysan, 2012; Reed, 2005). According to Schwarzer and
Schwarzer (1996), this is because most of the expanded coping strategies collapse back into
these elementary factors, namely, problem-focused and emotion-focused. According to
Krohne (1993), as well as Leventhal, Suls, and Leventhal (1993), the other strategies can at
best be seen as hierarchical extensions of these few basic factors.
Endler and Parker (1990a, 1990b, 1994) have used the minimalist approach of
differentiating coping strategies into only three-factors to develop the ‘Coping Instrument for
Stressful Situations’ (CISS), which presents coping as consisting of three basic strategic
dimensions or factors, namely, task-oriented, emotion-oriented, and avoidance-oriented
coping. While the first two factors are similar to the problem-focused and emotion-focused
strategies proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), the avoidance dimension has been
incorporated based on empirical evidence that showed people using avoidance of the stress-
inducing stimulus itself as a specific and basic coping strategy (Amirkhan, 1990; Endler &
Parker, 1990a, 1990b, 1994). According to Endler and Parker (1990a, 1994), the avoidance-
oriented coping strategy may be employed by making use of one’s social networks or by
distracting oneself through engaging in self-rewarding activities like eating and shopping.
These two different ways in which the avoidance-oriented strategy is manifested also leads
to Endler and Parker’s above mentioned coping model being perceived as consisting of four
instead of three distinct factors in a number of studies (Cohan, Jang, & Stein, 2006; Forrester,
1997; Thome & Espelage, 2004). In these studies the avoidance-oriented coping factor is
further split into social-diversion and distraction factors respectively.
2
Methods
Instrument
The CISS has displayed remarkable psychometric consistency and has been described
as “probably the best measure of its kind” (Stein, 2001, p. 353). It has established itself as a
highly valid and reliable instrument (Furukawa et al., 1993; Rafnsson et al., 2006; Ramli et
al., 2010; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996) and offers very good construct validity through high
correlations with scores on Folkman and Lazarus’ (1988) ‘Ways of Coping’ questionnaire
(Boysan, 2012; Endler & Parker, 1990a, 1990b, 1999; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). CISS’
PrePrints
internal consistency is also well established with coefficients for the different factors ranging
from 0.73 to 0.92. The test-retest reliability coefficients for this 48 item scale also range
between a moderate 0.51 to a high 0.73 (Parker & Endler, 1992).
In order to make the scale more participant-friendly and easier to administer, Endler
and Parker (1999) shortened the original CISS by selecting the seven items with the highest
validity scores for each of the three coping strategies. In this way, the original 48 item CISS
was modified into a short version with only 21 items. This short version is referred to as CISS-
21 (Calsbeek et al., 2003) or “CISS - Short Form” (CISS-SF) (Cohan et al., 2006). As reported
in the CISS manuals (Endler & Parker, 1990a, 1999), both in the original and the short
versions each of the three coping strategies is measured on a five-point Likert scale. The
Likert scale responses range from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The responses on all
the 7 items of each subscale in the CISS-21 (16 items for each subscale, in case of the original
version) are summed together to obtain aggregate scores for the three coping strategies.
Like the original version, the CISS-21 also has reported high internal consistencies
for all the three subscales, and also provides as good a factor structure as the original version
in samples from USA (Cohan et al., 2006), the Netherlands (Calsbeek et al., 2003), and
Turkey (Boysan, 2012).
In India, the use of the 48-item CISS (Far et al., 2012; Shirazi, Khan, & Khan, 2011)
as well as the CISS-21 (Mohanty et al., 2011) to measure coping preferences have been
reported. However, these studies have not presented any psychometric details like reliability
and validity figures, which could have helped in determining the suitability of using these
instruments with Indian samples.
The target of the current study is to analyze and report these psychometric properties
of CISS-21 with an Indian sample so as to ascertain if the instrument is as reliable and valid
for use in India as has been reported in the other countries.
Participants
Professionals working in various service sector jobs in Indian cities participated in the
study. They worked in various highly globalized and service-oriented workplaces including
call-centers, hotels, law firms, insurance agencies, banks, hospitals, and software companies
(Dickey, 2012; Golpelwar, 2011; Kamat, Mir, & Mathew, 2004; Kundu, 2009). After
PrePrints
removing the cases with missing data, the sample consisted of 274 professionals. All except
26 of the participants were between 18 to 30 years of age, as per the categorical data obtained
from them. All of the participants were either studying in a higher education institute or had
completed graduation.
The participants had a middle class background and were earning relatively high
salaries. Of the 223 participants who answered a query regarding their approximate income
per month, 201 were earning above Rs. 5,000 per month, which is higher than the median
monthly income for urban Indian households in base year 2004-05 that is, Rs. 4266.66 (cf.
Desai et al., 2010). 224 participants were unmarried, while about a fourth of them were
women. Table 1 provides this descriptive statistics in some detail.
As mentioned above, the participants of this study are professionals working in the
service sector in India. This particular group of individuals has been selected for the study,
given their rising importance within the Indian demography and economy. Currently, more
urban Indians are working in the service sector than in any other form of employment
(Ministry of Finance, 2011). It is estimated that the service sector now provides more than
half and perhaps up to two thirds of all the jobs in urban areas (Ministry of Finance, 2011;
National Sample Survey Office, 2011). In part, this is due to the preference of the young
middle class Indians for working in service sector jobs within outsourced and multinational
companies (Fernandes, 2000; Sandhu, 2006; Varma, 2007). Among others, these jobs mainly
include those in the legal, financial (including banking and insurance), hospitality, healthcare,
IT and customer care services (Balaji, 2006; Dossani & Kenney, 2007; Elmuti & Kathawala,
2000; Gereffi & Fernandez-Stark, 2010; Golpelwar, 2011; Grossman & Helpman, 2004;
Mukherjee, 2006; Parikh, 2004; Smith, 2007).
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Demographic Variable Demographic Source Sample Size Percentage of Total Sample
Age 18-21 56 20.44
22-25 111 40.51
26-30 81 29.56
31-35 16 5.84
35+ 10 3.65
Highest Complete Education Pre-University 22 8.03
Bachelor/Vocational Level Studies 145 52.92
PrePrints
Post-Graduate Studies 104 37.96

Did Not Respond 3 1.09
Gender Male 204 74.45
Female 70 25.55
Income (per month in Indian Less than 5,000 22 8.03
Rupees) 5,000-10,000 34 12.41
10,000-20,000 68 24.82
20,000-30,000 41 14.96
30,000-50,000 26 9.49
50,000-100,000 4 1.46
100,000+ 8 2.92
Service Subsector Global Call Center Employees 159 58.03
Others 115 41.97
Marital Status Married 47 17.15

Single 224 81.75
Divorced 1 0.36
Total Sample Size 274 100
Procedure
A battery of psychometric instruments and demographic/biographic details including
the CISS-21 was administered in English as all the participants were using it as the primary
language at work. Approximately a third of them filled in the questionnaire using paper and
pencil. The rest filled in an online version of the same questionnaire. The participants were
initially approached via online forums and social networks, as well as by contacting their
companies with a request for participation. The initial participants were requested to help the
data collection process by forwarding the instrument among their friends and colleagues. All
the participants also filled in demographic details as provided in Table 1. The participants
5
were assured anonymity and did not need to provide contact details, unless they specifically
wished to do so.
Results and Statistical Analysis

The numerical data obtained from the study was analyzed using the Stata® 12 package
for Microsoft Windows® (StataCorp, 2011b). The reliability (internal consistency) and
construct validity (factor structure) of the scales was obtained using Cronbach’s alpha
analysis and factor analysis respectively.
PrePrints
Internal Consistency
As can be seen in Table 2, both the unstandardized and the standardized Cronbach’s
alpha values for all the three subscales are above 0.7. Thus, all the three subscales have fairly
acceptable internal consistencies (Acock, 2010). Moreover, given that scales with less than
10 items generally have low alpha scores, these values actually indicate very good reliabilities
for the three subscales (Pallant, 2011).
Table 2: Internal Consistency of CISS-21 Subscales

CISS Number of Cronbach’s Alpha Average Inter-item
Subscales items correlation
Standardized Unstandardized
Emotion -oriented 7 0.70 0.71 0.25
Task-oriented 7 0.79 0.79 0.35
Avoidance-oriented 7 0.71 0.71 0.26
21
in total
The average inter-item correlation values, which are the preferred indicators of a short
(less than 10 items) scale’s internal consistency are also in the optimal range of 0.15-0.50
(Clark & Watson, 1995). This also indicates that the three subscales are internally consistent
and reliable for the sample employed in this study.
Factor Structure and Construct Validity

To establish the construct validity and to ascertain the factor structure of the CISS-21
with reference to the current sample, the data was analyzed using the exploratory factor
analysis method (Landis & Kaplan, 2005; Thompson, 2004). As the purpose of this study was
to specifically explore the latent factor structure of scale, a principal factor analysis (PFA)
approach was preferred over the more commonly used principal component analysis (PCA)
or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). As PFA uses only the common variance shared among
the items of a scale, instead of the total variance which PCA uses, it offers much more stable
factor loadings on latent variables than the later method and is the preferred method for
assessing latent factors (Acock, 2010; Buja & Eyuboglu, 1992; Costello & Osborne, 2010;
Steger, 2006; Widaman, 1993). However, in spite of these differences, PCA and PFA usually
yield similar factor structures (Lehman et al., 2005; Wilkinson, Blank, & Gruber, 1996). In
order to demonstrate the stability and proper identification of the extracted factors, as
PrePrints
suggested by Steger (2006), this article presents the initial factor extraction results from both
PCA and PFA. For the purpose of simplicity, the more detailed item based loadings on the
latent factors are only being presented through the PFA results.
Although CFA is one of the most commonly used analysis tool for latent structures
(Brown, 2006), it was not used for the present analysis because of stringent sample size
requirements. Both Hoyle (2000) and Prudon (2013), for instance, recommend a preferred
a sample size of at least 400 for ensuring robustness of the CFA results. The current sample
size of 274 does not satisfy this criteria.
Table 3: Rotated Principal Factors and Un-Rotated Eigenvalues before Scale Modification
Factor Variance Proportion Eigenvalue
Factor 1 2.53 0.32 3.28
Factor 2 2.08 0.26 2.43
Factor 3 2.07 0.26 1.45
Factor 4 1.51 0.19 1.03
Totals 8.19 1.021 8.19
LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(210) = 1631.57 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000
The principal factors were rotated using the orthogonal Varimax approach, which
helps in minimizing and simplifying the factor structure (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In case
of the PFA results, the decision regarding the number of factors to be retained was made using
Kaiser’s criterion of choosing only the factors with eigenvalues above 1.0 (Pallant, 2011).
1
It is not uncommon to obtain cumulative proportion values higher than 1.0, when using the principal
factor method of factor analysis (Rencher, 2002).
7
This was implemented by using the mineigen(1) option provided in Stata® (StataCorp,
2011a).
Table 4: Rotated Principal Components and Un-Rotated Eigenvalues before Modification of

Scale
Factor Variance Proportion Eigenvalue Random Standard 95th Percentile Factor
(1) (2) (3) (4) Eigenvalue Deviation of Random Retained (8)
(5) (6) Eigenvalue (7) [If (4)>(7)]
[=(5)+1.65x(6)]
Factor 1 3.08 0.15 3.86 1.54 .049 1.62 Yes
PrePrints
Factor 2 2.47 0.12 3.02 1.43 .040 1.50 Yes

Factor 3 2.19 0.10 2.07 1.37 .031 1.42 Yes
Factor 4 1.98 0.09 1.63 1.30 .030 1.35 Yes
Factor 5 1.87 0.09 1.19 1.24 .028 1.29 No
Factor 6 1.30 0.06 1.10 1.19 .024 1.23 No
Total 12.88 0.61 12.89 8.08 Four Factors
Retained
Only the PCA Factors with Eigenvalues above 1.0 are being reported, for the purpose of simplicity
LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(210) = 1631.57 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000
Parallel Analysis: Number of variables = 21; Number of replications = 100; Number of subjects = 27
Parallel analysis, which, according to Buja and Eyuboglu (1992), Steger (2006), and
Pallant (2011), probably offers the most optimal method of choosing the factors, was also not
used together with PFA. This is because, unlike with PCA, parallel analysis results are not
consistent with PFA. Using parallel analysis and PFA together actually raises the risk of
extracting too many factors (Buja & Eyuboglu, 1992; Steger, 2006). However, following
Steger’s (2006) recommendations, parallel analysis was conducted on the un-rotated
Eigenvalues of the PCA factors so as to further test the validity of the PFA extractions. The
random eigenvalues for parallel analysis were generated using the ‘Monte Carlo PCA for
Parallel Analysis’ software (Watkins, 2000, 2006).
All items with loadings that were not considered at least moderately strong (i.e., factor
loadings less than 0.4) were discarded (Acock, 2010; Hair et al., 2006; Pallant, 2011). As can
be seen from Table 3 (PFA) and Table 4 (PCA), a four-factor structure of coping strategies
emerged following the factor analysis. Both Kaiser’s criterion in PFA and parallel analysis in
PCA supported the extraction of four distinct factors.
Table 5: Rotated Principal Factor Loadings (Pattern Matrix) and Unique Variances before
Modification of Scale
Item Item CISS-21 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor Factor Uniqu-
Nr. Subscale 3 4 eness
01. Take some time off and get away Avoidance 0.11 0.15 0.20 -0.07 0.92
from the situation
02. Focus on the problem and see how I Task 0.40 -0.07 0.06 0.48 0.60
can solve it
03. Blame myself for having gotten into Emotion -0.38 0.56 -0.08 0.21 0.49
PrePrints
this situation
04. Treat myself to a favorite food or Avoidance 0.02 0.15 0.53 0.16 0.68
snack
05. Feel anxious about not being able to Emotion -0.11 0.50 0.05 -0.01 0.73
cope
06. Think about how I solved similar Task 0.56 0.05 0.25 0.18 0.59
problems
07. Visit a friend Avoidance 0.05 -0.01 0.65 -0.03 0.58
08. Determine a course of action and Task 0.24 -0.01 -0.03 0.62 0.55
follow it
09. Buy myself something Avoidance 0.29 0.06 0.51 -0.04 0.65
10. Blame myself for being too Emotion 0.11 0.63 0.20 -0.19 0.51
emotional about the situation
11. Work to understand the situation Task 0.54 -0.11 0.07 0.25 0.62
12. Become very upset Emotion 0.14 0.58 0.12 -0.23 0.58
13. Take corrective action immediately Task 0.17 -0.11 0.01 0.64 0.54
14. Blame myself for not knowing what Emotion -0.14 0.64 0.00 -0.02 0.57
to do
15. Spend time with a special person Avoidance 0.28 -0.04 0.53 -0.07 0.63
16. Think about the event and learn from Task 0.68 0.02 0.09 0.15 0.50
my mistakes
17. Wish that I could change what had Emotion -0.24 0.43 -0.04 0.25 0.70
happened or how I felt
18. Go out for a snack or meal Avoidance 0.25 0.14 0.62 -0.07 0.52
19. Analyze my problem before reacting Task 0.74 -0.10 0.09 0.10 0.42
20. Focus on my general inadequacies Emotion 0.25 0.24 0.02 0.24 0.82
21. Phone a friend Avoidance -0.31 0.08 0.49 0.24 0.60
All factor loadings above 0.4 are marked in bold.
As depicted in Table 5, only two out of the 21 original items did not have sufficiently
strong loading factors. Among these, one (item 1) belonged to the avoidance-oriented coping
subscale and another (item 20) to the emotion-oriented one. Both of these items had
uniqueness scores above 0.8, or in other words, communality values lower than 0.2 (Chadha,
2009). Therefore, these items needed to be removed for improving the common variance
within the subscales (Child, 2006). Interestingly, item 1 was also discarded by Cohan et al.
(2006) as well as by Calsbeek et al. (2003), because of low factor loadings. In the study
conducted in Turkey (Boysan, 2012), both items 1 and 20 had extremely high (above 0.95)
residual error terms associated with them.
Table 6: Rotated Principal Factors and Un-Rotated Eigenvalues after Modification of Scale
Factor Variance Proportion Eigenvalue
Factor 1 2.45 0.32 3.19
Factor 2 2.02 0.27 2.35
Factor 3 1.98 0.26 1.35
PrePrints
Factor 4 1.46 0.19 1.02

Totals 7.91 1.04 7.91
LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(171) = 1539.98 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000.
Table 7: Rotated Principal Components and Un-Rotated Eigenvalues after Modification of

Scale
Factor (1) Variance Proportion Eigenvalue Random Standard 95th Percentile of Factor
(2) (3) (4) Eigenvalue Deviation Random Retained
(5) (6) Eigenvalue (7) (If (4)>(7))
[=(5)+1.65x(6)]
Factor 1 2.98 0.16 3.78 1.48 0.05 1.56 Yes
Factor 2 2.58 0.14 2.95 1.40 0.04 1.46 Yes
Factor 3 2.09 0.11 1.96 1.32 0.03 1.38 Yes
Factor 4 1.98 0.10 1.67 1.26 0.03 1.31 Yes
Factor 5 1.83 0.10 1.17 1.21 0.02 1.25 No
Total 11.46 0.61 11.53 6.67 Four Factors
Retained
Only the PCA Factors with Eigenvalues above 1.0 are being reported, for the purpose of simplicity
LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(210) = 1631.57; Prob>chi2 = 0.0000
Parallel Analysis: Number of variables = 19; Number of replications = 100; Number of subjects = 274
10
Table 8: Rotated Principal Factor Loadings (Pattern Matrix) and Unique Variances after
Modification of Scale
Item Item CISS- Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Uniqueness
Nr. Subscale
02. Focus on the problem and see how I can Task 0.40 0.06 -0.06 0.49 0.60
solve it
03. Blame myself for having gotten into Emotion -0.40 -0.08 0.54 0.28 0.49
this situation
04. Treat myself to a favorite food or snack Avoidance 0.01 0.53 0.15 0.15 0.67
05. Feel anxious about not being able to Emotion -0.13 0.055 0.48 -0.00 0.75
PrePrints
cope
06. Think about how I solved similar Task 0.56 0.25 0.07 0.19 0.58
problems
07. Visit a friend Avoidance 0.05 0.64 -0.01 -0.03 0.58
08. Determine a course of action and Task 0.23 -0.03 -0.02 0.62 0.56
follow it
09. Buy myself something Avoidance 0.29 0.52 0.06 -0.05 0.64
10. Blame myself for being too emotional Emotion 0.11 0.20 0.66 -0.17 0.49
about the situation
11. Work to understand the situation Task 0.53 0.07 -0.12 0.26 0.63
12. Become very upset Emotion 0.15 0.11 0.61 -0.20 0.55
13. Take corrective action immediately Task 0.17 0.01 -0.11 0.65 0.53
14. Blame myself for not knowing what to Emotion -0.17 -0.00 0.63 -0.00 0.58
do
15. Spend time with a special person Avoidance 0.28 0.52 -0.03 -0.06 0.65
16. Think about the event and learn from Task 0.68 0.10 0.03 0.16 0.51
my mistakes
17. Wish that I could change what had Emotion -0.26 -0.03 0.40 0.24 0.71
happened or how I felt
18. Go out for a snack or meal Avoidance 0.25 0.62 0.15 -0.07 0.52
19. Analyze my problem before reacting Task 0.73 0.09 -0.10 0.12 0.44
21. Phone a friend Avoidance -0.31 0.49 0.07 0.24 0.60
All factor loadings above 0.4 are marked in bold.
After deleting the items 1 and 20, the rotated principal factor analysis process was
repeated to obtain a parsimonious simple structure in which each item is loaded to a
11
moderately strong level (i.e., with a factor loading greater than 0.4) on exactly one factor
(Gorsuch, 1974; Pallant, 2011; Thurstone, 1935, 1947). Once again, both the PFA (Table 6)
and PCA (Table 7) extractions resulted in a four factor structure. The simple structure thus
obtained, and presented in Table 8, offers a parsimonious and high quality view of the way
the CISS-21 factors are perceived by the participants constituting the sample (Gorsuch, 1974).
The PFA results in Table 8 show that Factor 1 corresponds largely to the task-oriented
coping strategy and contains all except three elements (items 2, 8 and 13) belonging to the
original subscale. The three elements missing from Factor 1 together constitute Factor 4.
Thus, Factor 4 seems to be another subset of the original task-oriented coping. Factor 2
PrePrints
corresponds largely to the avoidance-oriented coping factor from the original instrument and
contains all elements belonging to that subscale, except the omitted item 1. Factor 3
corresponds almost completely to the emotion-oriented coping factor of the original scale,
except the omitted item 20.
Internal Consistency of the Modified Four-Factor Structure

The internal consistency of the revised four-factor structure is depicted in Table 9.
The Emotion-oriented; avoidance-oriented; and task-oriented (cognitive) subscales have
alpha values above 0.7, while the task-oriented (action-based) subscale also has alpha
values, which are very close to and can be rounded to 0.7. The average-inter-item correlation
values for all the subscales are in the optimal range of 0.15-0.5. Thus, the modified CISS-21
scales shows satisfactory internal consistency (Clark & Watson, 1995; Pallant, 2011).
Table 9: Internal Consistency of the Modified CISS Subscales

CISS Number Cronbach’s Alpha Average Inter-
Subscales of items item correlation
Standardized Unstandardized
Emotion -oriented 6 0.73 0.73 0.31
Task-oriented (cognitive-appraisal 4
0.76 0.76 0.44
based)
Task-oriented (action-based) 3 0.70 0.70 0.44
Avoidance-oriented 6 0.73 0.72 0.31
19
in total
12
Discussion
While the internal consistency of the three CISS subscales has been established, the
factor structure that emerged is not similar to the one proposed by Endler and Parker (1990a,
1994, 1999). Instead, a four-factor structure was obtained. Because of the lack of cross-
loadings in the obtained simple structure (Table 8), this four-factor structure of CISS-21 can
be interpreted as displaying satisfactory convergent as well as divergent validity (Hu, Clark,
& Ma, 2003; Martínez López & Sánchez, 2011; Spathis & Ananiadis, 2005). These results
also confirm the construct validity of the avoidance and emotion-oriented coping factors of
PrePrints
the CISS-21.
The third theoretical CISS-21 factor, namely, task-oriented coping did not appear as
a unitary factor. Instead, two distinct sub-factors were obtained. This is a surprising result, as
this structure is distinct not only from the theoretical three-factor structure, but also from the
other four-factor structure of the CISS model that has been reported in some studies (Cohan
et al., 2006; Forrester, 1997; Thome & Espelage, 2004). In all these cases, the emotion and
task-oriented coping styles were revealed as unitary factors, whereas the avoidance-oriented
coping subscale was split into the distraction and social-diversion-oriented subscales. In the
current study, the emotion-oriented coping factor continued to be unitary, and so did the
avoidance-oriented coping factor. Contrary to the results of above mentioned studies, it was
the task-oriented coping scale which displayed two distinct sub-factors. This indicates that
the current Indian sample perceives task-oriented coping differently from the other samples
worldwide.
A closer look at the items constituting these two sub-factors shows that there is
conceptual difference between the respective elements. As can be seen from Table 6, all the
four elements of Factor 1 (“think about how I solved similar problems”, “work to understand
the situation”, “think about the event and learn from my mistakes”, and “analyze my problem
before reacting”) refer to the cognitive process of thinking or apprising the stressful situation.
Here the respondents are expected to analyze and understand the situation by contemplating
about it or by making use of their past experiences before taking any action. The constituent
elements of Factor 4 (“focus on the problem and see how I can solve it“, “determine a course
of action and follow it”, and “take corrective action immediately”), on the other hand,
encourage the respondent to look for a direct solution to the problem at hand and take decisive
13
action to implement the solution. Thus, the task-oriented coping factor gets subdivided into a
more introspective apprising and an extrospective active-solution seeking factors.
Interestingly, though this dichotomy of the task-oriented coping strategy into two
distinct parts has not been explicitly categorized in the Endler and Parker (1990a, 1994, 1999)
model, it has occurred frequently in literature. For example, Ayers et al. (2006) have referred
to the overall task-oriented coping as active coping. According to them, this coping style
comprises direct problem solving as well as cognitive reappraisal. Lazarus and Folkman
(1984) have also pointed out that direct problem-solving and positive reappraisal can be
distinct coping strategies, and have included these in their ‘Ways of Coping’ questionnaire
PrePrints
(1988). Wong, Wong, and Scott (2006) also similarly differentiated between an inward
cognitive and a more action-focused outward approach coping, both of which they described
as active styles. Latack (1986) and Armstrong-Stassen (2005) also grouped cognitive
reappraisal and direct-action as forms of proactive and control-oriented coping styles, which
are distinct from the more reactive emotion and escape focused styles. Latack and Havlovic
(1992) referred to cognitive-appraisal-focused coping as a style distinct from the action-based
problem-focused coping. However, they also reported a lack of empirical evidence needed
for explicitly differentiating between these two styles of coping.
Latack and Havlovic’s (1992) findings regarding a general lack of empirical evidence
that support the dual-dimensionality of the task-oriented coping style have been corroborated
by other studies as well. For example, there is also strong empirical evidence in studies using
the ‘Ways of Coping’ questionnaire, which indicates that both the direct action-based and
cognitive-appraisal strategies are so highly correlated with each other that they are almost
indistinguishable from one another (Lambert, Lambert, & Ito, 2004; Ratzlaff et al., 2000). In
fact, this is no different from the results of the many studies using the original and short
versions of CISS (e.g.: Boysan, 2012; Calsbeek et al., 2003; Cohan et al., 2006; Endler &
Parker, 1990a, 1999; Hasui et al., 2009) that have also confirmed the unitary structure of the
task-oriented coping factor. Moreover, the direct-action and thought-based proactive factors
of the ‘Ways of Coping’ questionnaire were not limited to being highly correlated in studies
involving only European-American areas. A study involving nurses in China (Xianyu &
Lambert, 2006) and one with university students in India (Shah & Thingujam, 2008) also
14
found the action-based and problem-solving oriented dimension and the cognitive-appraisal
dimension to be closely related.
However, there appears to be a cultural difference in the preference being accorded to
the respective dimensions of action-based problem-solving and cognitive appraisal or
reappraisal for the purpose of coping with stressful situations. Whereas action-oriented
problem solving mechanisms are preferred in the European or North American cultures
(Wong et al., 2006), Asian cultures seem to prefer cognitive-appraisal as a task-oriented
strategy (Chen, 2009; Sung, 2012). Direct action-based coping strategies like assertive self-
disclosure or direct confrontation are avoided (Sumer, 2009). Thus, the individual preference
PrePrints
for one over the other mode of task-oriented coping is dependent on the cultural background
of the person. However, the high correlation between the two sub-styles usually results in
them being perceived as a single task-oriented coping factor.
In urban India too, various samples have shown a preference for the cognitive
appraisal and re-appraisal strategies over direct action-based strategies to resolve problems.
The preferred problem-focused strategy in Indian studies and coping literature is usually
reported to be the reassessment of the situation based earlier experiences. Indians have been
reported to employ task-oriented coping by making changes in one’s own perception of the
situation rather than trying to directly act upon the stressor (Hariharan & Rath, 2008; Kaila,
2004; Mohanty et al., 2011; Sharma & Sharma, 2008). Thus, as compared to direct actions
like assertive confrontations, the preferences for proactively dealing with stress in urban India
include cognitive-appraisal strategies including the use of meditation techniques like Yoga,
acceptance of the situation at hand and accepting the inability of oneself to change this
situation (Abdulla, Shah, & Khan, 2011; Kavitha, 2009; Pestonjee, 1992).
But, what could explain the rather unique and bipolar preference for both cognitive
and action-based task-oriented coping in the current sample? One of the reasons could be the
existence of ‘naïve dialecticism’ that is prevalent in Asian cultures including India
(Perunovic, Ross, & Wilson, 2005; Samson, 2004; Sinha & Tripathi, 1994). Naïve dialectic
thinking allows for the juxtaposition of concepts that might appear opposing each other in the
Aristotelian logical mode of thinking, without appearing contradictory to the individual doing
the thinking in this case. Therefore, it is not unusual for Indians and other Asians to experience
and display seemingly contradictory emotions and attitudes like happiness and sadness,
15
individualism and collectivism, and secularism and religious belief concurrently (Boucher et
al., 2009; Lindquist & Barrett, 2008; Sinha & Tripathi, 1994). A bipolar preference for both
cognitive and action-based task-oriented coping could also stem from this complex pattern of
thinking among Asians. However, as earlier studies in both China (Xianyu & Lambert, 2006)
and India (Shah & Thingujam, 2008) did not find such bipolar task-orientated coping among
their respective samples, naïve dialecticism alone does not offer a satisfactory solution to this
conundrum.
The constitution of the sample itself might offer a solution in this case. A highly
globalized work force from the service sector participated in the study. This sample, though
PrePrints
being Indian in origin and geography works in a globalized workplace that is greatly
influenced by American cultural practices (Dickey, 2012; Kamat et al., 2004; Kundu, 2009;
Mahajan, 1995; Nisbett, 2007; Rampal, 2001; Turiel, 2002). Peng and Nisbett (1999) have
argued that naïve dialecticism makes Asian individuals experiencing such multicultural lives
more likely to become bicultural than Western individuals. Other studies also have reported
that such bicultural individuals tend to display seemingly opposing traits from the different
cultures as compatible, and not contradictory to each other (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos,
2005; Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013).
This biculturalism might be a reason for the rather unique and bi-polar perception of
the task-oriented coping dimension into both a cognitive-appraisal style (favored by the
Indian culture) and an action-oriented solution seeking style (favored by the globalized urban
employees). The participants could be looking at these styles with differing preferences based
on the degree to which they are westernized or globalized in their coping preferences. These
differing perceptions of task-orientation could result in the otherwise unidimensional task-
oriented coping style appear as two distinct sub-factors.
Conclusions
The CISS-21 offers good internal consistency among the urban Indian sample that
participated in this study. However, the three-factor structure that differentiates coping in
emotion-oriented, avoidance-oriented, and task-oriented styles could only be partially
validated. Instead of a 21 item scale with three factors, a 19 item scale with a four-factor
structure emerged after using both principal factor analysis and principal component analysis.
16
This resulting four-factor structure maintained the avoidance and emotion-oriented coping
factors, but split the task-oriented coping factor into cognitive and action-oriented sub-factors.
This four-factor model displayed satisfactory content validity and internal consistency.
The two items (1 and 20), which were omitted from the factor analysis because of low
factor loadings and high uniqueness might also indicate the need for reformulating or
removing them from the CISS-21 scale. The need for a modification of the current forms of
these two items is important, as previous studies conducted in America, the Netherlands, and
Turkey have also reported low factor loadings for them. Thus, the continuation of these two
items in their current form might require a reassessment.
PrePrints
This study has successfully explored and presented the psychometric properties of the
CISS-21 in the Indian context. In the process, it has shown that the emotion-oriented and
avoidance-oriented subscales of the CISS-21 are valid and consistent among professionals
belonging to the rapidly growing urban service sector in India. However, the way this group
perceives task-oriented coping is distinct from the other samples found in literature. Task-
oriented coping among these individuals appears to be split into cognitive-appraisal-based
and direct action-based sub-styles.
Existing literature points towards naïve dialecticism and bicultural identity among the
sample as possible reasons for the bipolarity observed within the task-oriented coping factor.
Whether this is the conclusive reason for the four-factor structure of CISS-21 is, however,
beyond the scope of this article, which is primarily exploring and reporting the psychometric
properties of the scale among a single sample. Furthermore the limitations of not being able
to use the more powerful and generalizable CFA or parallel analysis methods hinder such a
conclusive deduction for the current study. The role of naïve dialecticism and bicultural
identity in causing the bipolar split in the task-oriented factor can only be ascertained with
the help of further studies, which take the degree of globalization and acculturation levels of
the participants into perspective.
17
References
Abdulla, P., Shah, A. M., & Khan, A. A. (2011). Stress Coping Strategies: An Experiential
Exploration Of Bank Executives. International Journal Of Research In Computer
Application & Management, 1(5), 55-63.
Acock, A. C. (2010). A gentle introduction to Stata (3rd ed.). College Station: Stata Press.
Amirkhan, J. H. (1990). A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The coping strategy
indicator. Journal of personality and social psychology, 59(5), 1066-1074.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2005). Coping With Downsizing: A Comparison of Executive-Level
PrePrints
and Middle Managers. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 117.

Ayers, T. S., Sandier, I. N., West, S. G., & Roosa, M. W. (2006). A dispositional and
situational assessment of children's coping: Testing alternative models of coping.
Journal of personality, 64(4), 923-958.
Balaji, E. (2006). Open Sesame: The Week-ACNielsen HOT JOBS Survey. The Week,
25(35), 36-39.
Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components
and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of personality, 73(4), 1015-1050.
Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and Cognitive Complexity:
Expertise in Cultural Representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(4),
386-407. doi: 10.1177/0022022106288476
Boucher, H. C., Peng, K., Shi, J., & Wang, L. (2009). Culture and Implicit Self-Esteem
Chinese Are “Good” and “Bad” at the Same Time. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40(1), 24-45.
Boysan, M. (2012). Validity of the Coping Inventory For Stressful Situations - Short Form
(CISS-21) in a non-clinical Turkish sample. Dusunen Adam: The Journal of
Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 25(2), 101-107.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford
Press.
Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 27(4), 509-540.
Calsbeek, H., Rijken, M., Henegouwen, G. P. v. B., & Dekker, J. (2003). Factor structure of
the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS-21) in adolescents and young
18
adults with chronic digestive disorders. In H. Calsbeek (Ed.), The social position of
adolescents and young adults with chronic digestive disorders (pp. 83-103). Utrect:
Nivel.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(2),
267-283.
Chadha, N. K. (2009). Applied psychometry. New Delhi: Sage.
Chen, H. (2009). A cross-cultural study of coping. Ball State University, Muncie.
Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed.). London: Continuum.
PrePrints
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309.
Cohan, S. L., Jang, K. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of a short form
of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
62(3), 273-283.
Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2010). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7
Desai, S. B., Dubey, A., Joshi, B. L., Sen, M., Shariff, A., & Vanneman, R. (2010). Human
development in India: challenges for a society in transition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dickey, S. (2012). The Pleasures and Anxieties of Being in the Middle: Emerging Middle-
Class Identities in Urban South India. Modern Asian Studies, 46(03), 559-599. doi:
10.1017/S0026749X11000333
Dossani, R., & Kenney, M. (2007). The next wave of globalization: Relocating service
provision to India. World Development, 35(5), 772-791.
Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (2000). The effects of global outsourcing strategies on
participants' attitudes and organizational effectiveness. International Journal of
Manpower, 21(1-2), 112-128.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990a). Coping inventory for stressful situations (CISS):
Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
19
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990b). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical

evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(5), 844-854.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task,
emotion, and avoidance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6(1), 50-60.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1999). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS):
Manual (2nd ed.). North Tonawanda: Multi-Health Systems.
Far, M. A. M., Khan, M. A., Shirazi, M., & Arya, A. R. M. (2012). Coping strategies In
relation To mental health: A cross-cultural study on Indian and Iranian students.
Journal of Subcontinental Researches, 4(11), 71-92.
PrePrints
Fernandes, L. (2000). Restructuring the new middle class in liberalizing India. Comparative
Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 20(1), 88-104.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Manual for the ways of coping questionnaire. Porto
Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Forrester, L. A. (1997). Coping as a moderator of the impact of parental layoff on the
educational aspirations of rural adolescents in Northeastern Ontario. Unpublished
master's thesis., Laurentian University, Sudbury.
Furukawa, T., Suzuki-Moor, A., Saito, Y., & Hamanaka, T. (1993). Reliability and validity
of the Japanese version of the coping inventory for stressful situations (CISS): a
contribution to the cross-cultural studies of coping]. Seishin shinkeigaku zasshi=
Psychiatria et neurologia Japonica, 95(8), 602.
Gereffi, G., & Fernandez-Stark, K. (2010). The offshore services value chain: Developing
countries and the crisis Policy Research Working Paper. Washington, D. C.: World
Bank.
Golpelwar, M. M. (2011). The BPO Crowd: An Empirical Assessment of Employees'
Perceptions and Soceital Crticism of Call Centers in India. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Bremen, Bremen.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2004). Managerial incentives and the international
organization of production. Journal of International Economics, 63(2), 237-262.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). Delhi: Dorling Kindersley.
20
Hariharan, M., & Rath, R. (2008). Coping with Life Stress: The Indian Experience. New
Delhi: Sage.
Hasui, C., Igarashi, H., Shikai, N., Shono, M., Nagata, T., & Kitamura, T. (2009). The
Resilience Scale: A Duplication Study in Japan. Open Family Studies Journal, 2, 15-
22.
Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.),
Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 465-
497). San Diego: Academic Press.
Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by
PrePrints
school teachers: a longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227-241.

Kaila, H. L. (2004). Indian Women Managers: Their Stresses, Health and Coping Behaviour
- A Survey in Mumbai. Journal of Health Management, 6(2), 147-161. doi:
10.1177/097206340400600206
Kamat, S., Mir, A., & Mathew, B. (2004). Producing hi-tech: globalization, the state and
migrant subjects. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(1), 1-39.
Kavitha, G. (2009). Occupational Stress and Coping Strategies. New Delhi: Discovery.
Krohne, H. W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In
H. W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and Avoidance: Strategies in Coping with Aversiveness
(pp. 19-50). Ashland: Hogrefe & Huber.
Kundu, A. (2009). Building Blocks. India International Centre Quarterly, 316-331.
Lambert, V. A., Lambert, C. E., & Ito, M. (2004). Workplace stressors, ways of coping and
demographic characteristics as predictors of physical and mental health of Japanese
hospital nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(1), 85.
Landis, R. S., & Kaplan, S. A. (2005). Industrial/Organizational Psychology. In B. S. Everitt
& D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (Vol. 2, pp.
915-920). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Latack, J. C. (1986). Coping With Job Stress:: Measures and Future Directions for Scale
Development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 377-385.
Latack, J. C., & Havlovic, S. J. (1992). Coping with Job Stress: A Conceptual Evaluation
Framework for Coping Measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(5), 479-
508.
21
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lehman, A., O’Rourke, N., Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (2005). JMP® for Basic
Univariate and Multivariate Statistics: A step-by-step guide. Cary: SAS Press.
Leventhal, E. A., Suls, J., & Leventhal, H. (1993). Hierarchical Analysis of Coping: Evidence
From Life-Span Studies. In H. W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and Avoidance: Strategies
in Coping with Aversiveness (pp. 71-99). Ashland: Hogrefe & Huber.
Lindquist, K. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2008). Emotional complexity. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-
Jones & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 513-530). London: Guilford
Press.
PrePrints
Mahajan, A. (1995). Urban youth in Indian society: Structural stresses and cultural responses.
In N. Mohammad & A. Matin (Eds.), Indian youth, problems and prospects (pp. 89-
101). New Delhi: Ashish.
Martínez López, A. M., & Sánchez, A. V. (2011). Strategy and innovation. study of the
innovative capacity of the Spanish hotel industry. Tourism & Management Studies, 1,
124-134.
McCrae, R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, and challenge.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(4), 919-928.
Ministry of Finance, Government of India (2011). Economic Survey (Vol. 2010-2011). New
Delhi: Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Mohanty, I. R., Mohanty, N., Balasubramanium, P., Joseph, D., & Deshmuk, Y. (2011).
Assessment of stress, coping strategies and life style among medical students. Indian
Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, 42(3), 295.
Mukherjee, N. (2006). Great Indian job market. The Week, 25(35), 40-46.
National Sample Survey Office (2011). Employment and Unemployment Situation in India:
2009-10. New Delhi: Government of India.
Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and Adjustment: A Meta-
Analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122-159. doi:
10.1177/0022022111435097
Nisbett, N. (2007). Friendship, consumption, morality: Practising identity, negotiating
hierarchy in middle class Bangalore. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,
13(4), 935-950.
22
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS
for Windows (4th ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Parikh, R. (2004). American Business Process Outsourcing in India: A Close Examination.
The Visible Hand, XI(II), 11-13.
Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S. (1992). Coping with coping assessment: a critical review.
European Journal of Personality, 6(5), 321-344.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.
American psychologist, 54(9), 741.
Perunovic, W. Q. E., Ross, M., & Wilson, A. E. (2005). Language, Culture, and Conceptions
PrePrints
of the Self. In R. M. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Culture

and Social Behavior: (Vol. 10: The Ontario Symposium, pp. 165-180). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pestonjee, D. M. (1992). Stress and coping: The Indian experience. New Delhi: Sage.
Prudon, P. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis: a brief introduction and critique Retrieved
June 7, 2014, from http://home.kpn.nl/p.prudon/CFA-critique.pdf
Rafnsson, F. D., Smari, J., Windle, M., Mears, S. A., & Endler, N. S. (2006). Factor structure
and psychometric characteristics of the Icelandic version of the Coping Inventory for
Stressful Situations (CISS). Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1247-
1258. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.011
Ramli, M., Ariff, F. M., Khalid, Y., & Rosnani, S. (2010). Validation of the Bahasa Malaysia
version of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situation. Malaysian Journal of
Psychiatry, 17(2).
Rampal, K. R. (2001). Cultural bane or sociological boon? Impact of satellite television on
urban youth in India. In Y. R. Kamalipour & K. R. Rampal (Eds.), Media, sex,
violence, and drugs in the global village (pp. 115-130). Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Ratzlaff, C., Matsumoto, D., Kouznetsova, N., Raroque, J., & Ray, R. (2000). Individual
Psychological Culture and Subjective Well-being. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.),
Culture and Subjective Well-Being (pp. 319-339). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Reed, C. A. (2005). The relationships among neuroticism, dysfunctional career thoughts, and
coping strategies. Ph.D. Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
23
Rencher, A. C. (2002). Methods of multivariate analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Samson, A. (2004). Contradictions in counter-intuitive beliefs and naïve dialecticism. Journal
of cognition and culture, 4(2), 373-390.
Sandhu, A. (2006). Why Unions Fail in Organising India’s BPO-ITES Industry. Economic
and Political Weekly, 41(41), 4319-4322.
Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. In M.
Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications
(pp. 107–132). New York: Wiley.
Shah, M., & Thingujam, N. S. (2008). Perceived Emotional Intelligence and Ways of Coping
PrePrints
among Students. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(1), 83-91.
Sharma, S., & Sharma, J. (2008). A study of stress & cope-up strategies of service sector
employees. Indian Management Studies Journal, 12, 19-35.
Shirazi, M., Khan, M. A., & Khan, R. A. (2011). Coping strategies: A cross-cultural study.
Romanian Journal of Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience, 1(2), 284-302.
Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of
coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G.
Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application (pp.
123-136). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Smith, R. (2007). Beyond the Back Office: How Legal Outsourcing Companies in India are
Moving Up the Value Chain. Halsbury's Law Monthly(October), 16-26.
Spathis, C., & Ananiadis, J. (2005). Assessing the benefits of using an enterprise system in
accounting information and management. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 18(2), 195-210.
StataCorp (2011a). Stata Multivariate Statistics Reference Manual: Release 12. College
Station: Stata Press.
StataCorp. (2011b). Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station: StataCorp LP.
Steger, M. F. (2006). An illustration of issues in factor extraction and identification of
dimensionality in psychological assessment data. Journal of personality assessment,
86(3), 263-272.
24
Stein, S. (2001). Review of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations. In B. S. Plake & J.
C. Impara (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 354-355).
Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Sumer, S. (2009). International Students' Psychological and Sociocultural Adaptation in the
United States. Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Sung, D.-H. (2012). Examining emotion-focused coping among east asians and european
americans: A cross-cultural comparison. Indiana State University, Terre Haute.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
PrePrints
Thome, J., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Relations among exercise, coping, disordered eating,
and psychological health among college students. Eating Behaviors, 5(4), 337-351.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding
Concepts and Applications. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
Thurstone, L. L. (1935). The vectors of mind; multiple-factor analysis for the isolation of
primary traits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis; a development and expansion of The
vectors of the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and social conflict.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varma, P. K. (2007). The great Indian middle class. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software]. State
College: Ed & Psych Associates.
Watkins, M. W. (2006). Determining parallel analysis criteria. Journal of Modern Applied
Statistical Methods, 5(2), 344-346.
Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis:
Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 28(3), 263-311.
Wilkinson, L., Blank, G., & Gruber, C. (1996). Desktop analysis with SYSTAT®. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
Wong, P. T. P., Wong, L. C. J., & Scott, C. (2006). Beyond Stress And Coping: The Positive
Psychology Of Transformation. In P. T. P. Wong, L. C. J. Wong & W. J. Lonner
25
(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 1-28). New
York ; London: Springer.
Xianyu, Y., & Lambert, V. A. (2006). Investigation of the relationships among workplace
stressors, ways of coping, and the mental health of Chinese head nurses. Nursing &
Health Sciences, 8(3), 147-155. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2006.00281.x
PrePrints
26

Action and Cognition in Task Oriented Coping: Factor Structure and Internal Consistency of The CISS-21 With An Indian Sample

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Action and Cognition in Task Oriented Coping: Factor Structure and Internal Consistency of The CISS-21 With An Indian Sample

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Action and Cognition in Task Oriented Coping: Factor Structure and

Internal Consistency of the CISS-21 with an Indian Sample

Lehrstuhl für Personalwesen und Führungslehre (Department of Human Resource

Management and Leadership), Universität Bayreuth (University of Bayreuth), Bayreuth,

RW-II 2.13, Universitätsstraße 30, D-95440 Bayreuth, Germany

Running Title: CISS-21 with an Indian Sample

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Post-Graduate Studies 104 37.96

Marital Status Married 47 17.15

Results and Statistical Analysis

Table 2: Internal Consistency of CISS-21 Subscales

Factor Structure and Construct Validity

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(210) = 1631.57 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000

Table 4: Rotated Principal Components and Un-Rotated Eigenvalues before Modification of

Factor 2 2.47 0.12 3.02 1.43 .040 1.50 Yes

All factor loadings above 0.4 are marked in bold.

Factor 4 1.46 0.19 1.02

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(171) = 1539.98 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000.

Table 7: Rotated Principal Components and Un-Rotated Eigenvalues after Modification of

All factor loadings above 0.4 are marked in bold.

Internal Consistency of the Modified Four-Factor Structure

Table 9: Internal Consistency of the Modified CISS Subscales

and Middle Managers. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 117.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990b). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical

school teachers: a longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227-241.

of the Self. In R. M. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Culture

You might also like